Author Topic: A divebomber nightmare  (Read 1355 times)

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
A divebomber nightmare
« Reply #15 on: July 04, 2005, 02:49:27 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Bullethead
I'm not sure Iowa would have suffered even a scratch.  Basically, thanks to way better radar and fire control systems, Iowa could have maintained accurate fire on Yamato from beyond Yamato's ability to even see Iowa.  The radar Iowa had was one of the first to have a PPI scope, and shell splashes showed up on it.  This enabled the ship to spot fall of shot VERY accurately at any range, even if the splashes weren't visible from the foretop.

Everything I've read about WWII radar would indicate that the theoretical capabilities were never reached due to the difficulty of deciphering the data display.  I may be giving the Yamato too much credit, but I think you may be giving Iowa too much as well.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Bullethead

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1018
      • http://people.delphiforums.com/jtweller
A divebomber nightmare
« Reply #16 on: July 04, 2005, 04:39:58 PM »
Karnak said:
Quote
Everything I've read about WWII radar would indicate that the theoretical capabilities were never reached due to the difficulty of deciphering the data display. I may be giving the Yamato too much credit, but I think you may be giving Iowa too much as well.


Well, I got the info on Iowa's gear from one of her old WW2 fire controlmen, and I figure he knew what he was talking about.

I mentioned this because I was suprised to learn that radar had that capability.  My dad worked radars on a WW2 DD and his stuff was way more primitive.  Instead of a PPI scope, if gave you a stylized side view, with the target just being a spike above the baseline.  Normally it wouldn't show splashes, and even if it did, it wasn't equipped to get a range correction from it, and there was no way to see how far you were off in deflection.  So basically it was just a good rangefinder, but fall of shot spotting and correction still had to be done visually.  And if there were a lot of targets in the area, it was very hard to tell which one was on the scope, and closer ships masked others in the general vicinity.

Offline Kurfürst

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 921
      • http://www.kurfurst.org
A divebomber nightmare
« Reply #17 on: July 06, 2005, 06:42:39 AM »
Still the problem with ww2 naval radar guided gunnery and wished-to-be long range engagements is the dispersion of the guns themselves. You will get a large spread at long ranges, no matter how good your firing solution and range estimation is. And I simply don`t belive that radar of the time was capable of any better accuracy than optical equipment under good visibility conditions. There`s no reason to believe so. Optics don`t distort, the primitive electronics of the 1940s did. Keep in mind that it was used most of the time for close range engagements in darkness, it was that area it good give advantage.

Besides, radar equipment, masts etc. are very exposed on any BB, it doesn`t takes much to render it useless. Bismarck 'succeded' in knocking out it`s own forward radar set when it fired backwards with A and B turrets. Scharhornst lost it`s radar set to cruiser fire, to otherwise meaningless hits... You don`t need direct hits, blast, fragments can do that easily. It doesn`t stand for the conventional optical ranging towers, which were heavily armored.

It would be interesting to see actual bearing and range accuracy for Allied radar at the time though. It`s usually claimed to have with pinpoint/surgical accuracy, but I have never seen figures to underline it.
The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site
http://www.kurfurst.org

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
A divebomber nightmare
« Reply #18 on: July 06, 2005, 06:52:15 AM »
Spot on Kurfurst, was just gonna mention that with the Scharhorst.
Now, that was a 6 inch shell if I remember it right.
Anyway, luck and unluck plays with this a lot.
Bismmarck sinks HMS Hood with a single 15" shell.
Now 15" is not small, about 900 kgs, plumming down from what, 30.000 feet? Bismarck takes 3 13" hits from HMS P.O.W. and starts bleeding fuel.
And then the 16" from Rodney, or was it Nelson? renders Bismarcks fire control useless with a single hit. Bismarck took like 700+ hits before being scuttled, - not that it mattered much.

But about the FLAK, aren't you forgetting something?
U.S. PROXIMITY SHELL ;)
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Kurfürst

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 921
      • http://www.kurfurst.org
A divebomber nightmare
« Reply #19 on: July 06, 2005, 07:04:42 AM »
Well proximiity ammo was great, but i though it was a discussion about the firecontrol of the 'big guns'. The 40mm bofors used the very same fine instrument to aim at the incoming craft as centuries before : the human eye. There was no radar control for the medium aa guns, though I am not sure about the 5" ones. Probably they had, I know KM ships better, Tirpitz used the LW`s Wurzburg set for heavy AAA fire control.

Back on radar, range estimation doesn`t seem to be a huge problem. This could be done fairly well with early war, longwave radar sets to about 20k (range largely depends on target size). The problem was getting the bearing data, which they had troubles with due to the poor resulution. But even mid-war German sets, which operated at far longer waves (less precision, but also less noise from sea waves) were capable of 0.5 degree bearing accuaracy, which gives around 50 or 100?meter dispersion at the top edge of practical ww2 naval engagments. Already good enough to hit a 250m long ship, especially with gun dispersion in account...

later war Allied radar with it`s small centimetric wavelenght must have been more precise, but if both sides possess the neccesary precision to hit the enemy, there`s not much difference in actual hit probabilities, assuming Japanese sets were good as the KMs.
The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site
http://www.kurfurst.org

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
A divebomber nightmare
« Reply #20 on: July 06, 2005, 09:56:35 AM »
The Graf Spee was already equipped with some sort of radar aiming, that being in 1939 (?) was probably one of the worlds first radar assisted aiming system.
I think also, that in 1939/40 the Germans managed to shoot down an unseen (darkness or cluds) british bomber with radar aid.
Somehow, the technology was not perfected, and then again, there are so many factors involved, such as wind, target altering hdg/alt etc.
About the big guns, I wonder if they had a prox fuse, - that would have been the biggest aid I guess.
BTW, the hit record on a moving target was AFAIK accomplished by HMS Warspite in a scruffle with the italian Navy, - at Matapan?
I am not sure if it was radar assisted. Range was some 26 km.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Kurfürst

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 921
      • http://www.kurfurst.org
A divebomber nightmare
« Reply #21 on: July 06, 2005, 11:38:51 AM »
Yes, the Graf Spee had the 'Seetakt', the earliest radar set iirc. the british examanined the wreck for the radar installation.

As for german AA radar, the various Wurzburg sets served through the war, constantly improved, and produced in really huge qualities - given the number of flak batteries, each was served by one wurzburg.

I am not sure if the 5" and such guns had proxy fuse, probably so. For the biggest guns, the Yamato was unique as afaik it had a canister like round for those huge 18" naval guns to be used against aircraft... evil.  :eek:

AFAIK Warspite (on the Zara?) and Scharnhorst (carrier Glorious) share the credit for the longest ranged hits in ww2, both 26 or km, very close.. But I beleive Scharnhorst wasn`t using radar either.
The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site
http://www.kurfurst.org